ONTD Political

Zimmerman Juror Decides Not To Write Book About Trial

11:04 am - 07/16/2013
Intense and immediate backlash apparently changed the mind of Juror B37 — and her agent. “I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before …”



Late Monday night, Sharlene Martin of Martin Literary Management LLC told BuzzFeed that Juror B37 will no longer pursue a book deal.

The juror’s statement, via Martin:

“I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to protest our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case. The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives solely and it was to be an observation that our ‘system’ of justice can get so complicated that it creates a conflict with our ‘spirit’ of justice.

Now that I am returned to my family and to society in general, I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before I was called to sit on this jury.”

The juror’s announcement came after Martin — who has also represented Amanda Knox’s ex Raffaele Sollecito — decided to drop her following hours of outrage on social media.

“After careful consideration regarding the proposed book project with Zimmerman Juror B37, I have decided to rescind my offer of representation in the exploration of a book based upon this case,” Martin said in an email at the time.

Earlier Monday, when the partnership was first announced, Martin said she hoped Juror B37’s book would help the public “understand the commitment it takes to serve and be sequestered on a jury in a highly publicized murder trial …. It could open a whole new dialogue about laws that may need to be revised and revamped to suit a 21st century way of life.”

But on Monday evening, Juror B37 went on CNN to defend the jury’s decision to find George Zimmerman not guilty.

“I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into,” she said. “I think they both could have walked away.”

Not long after the interview aired, calls for Martin to drop the juror intensified. A Change.org petition by Genie Lauren circulated, asking Trayvon Martin supporters to not “allow this person to profit off of the injustice that they’ve served to the American public.” By 12:30 a.m. on Tuesday, it had more than 800 signatures.


Ivonna Humpu@JustMama71
Twitter: please tweet: @sharlenemartin and demand that she not represent a book by Juror B37. Twitter has power.

#FeministMILF@FeministaJones
Dear @sharlenemartin, We ask that you not represent Juror B37 and her book. It is an exploitation of an innocent life.

Trillma Dinkley@NaniCoolJ
I need for everyone to tell @sharlenemartin NOT TO PUBLISH JUROR B37'S BOOK! They can't be allowed to profit off of the MURDER OF A CHILD!

Peg@IowaPeg
Boycott Martin Literary Management- take note of their tacky book list and swear to never spend a cent on them. Juror B37 @sharlenemartin


This went on for hours, until Martin contacted Lauren personally to say she was dropping the juror.


Cocky McSwagsalot@MoreAndAgain
I'm going to respond to her message and ask her if she will make this statement publicly. But. . . HOLY SHIT!

Cocky McSwagsalot@MoreAndAgain
Y'all. I'm crying, right now

Questlove Jenkins@questlove
thank you @MoreAndAgain for leading the effort to get #JurorB37's book deal dropped.



Source. Tbh you were pretty 'shielded' BEFORE the trial if you had no idea this could emotionally affect people...
ar_feiniel_ 16th-Jul-2013 03:45 pm (UTC)
Tbh you were pretty 'shielded' BEFORE the trial if you had no idea this could emotionally affect people...

To be fair, she probably was pretty unaware beforehand -- that's why she ended up getting picked to be on the jury.

Still, she should have had the reasonable-mindedness to realize that profiting from the death of a teenager was in poor taste.
tadashee 16th-Jul-2013 04:54 pm (UTC)
Ehh. She seems very ignorant to me. When asked what she knew of the case, she said a boy of color died. They sounds sketchy to me. But after watching the interview, she is so vile. She has an unusual amount of sympathy for George Zimmerman. And a book deal and interview immediately after the case? She wasn't shielded. She knew she would make $$. It's disgusting.
tadashee 16th-Jul-2013 04:54 pm (UTC)
That* sounds sketchy to me.
ar_feiniel_ 16th-Jul-2013 05:05 pm (UTC)
I don't disagree with you there. Her recent statements cast a lot of shade against herself and what she knew going into the trial.
lickety_split 16th-Jul-2013 06:38 pm (UTC)
Exactly.
skellington1 16th-Jul-2013 08:25 pm (UTC)
Yup.

The 'ignorant' part goes back to the whole bad feeling about juror selection in the first place -- who IS that ignorant, and why do we want them making descisions? -- and also to the original issues, since if the cops had gotten a move on faster there wouldn't have been such a huge time between the crime and the trial and it'd be easier to find jurors and... ugh.

But if anything's clear, 'waiting two days and then trying to cash in on others' agony' is.
tadashee 16th-Jul-2013 08:40 pm (UTC)
yeah the whole cop situation is just awful.

but by ignorant I meant about race in general. "boy of color" sounds like something out of the 50s, pre civil rights to me. I refer to myself as a woc, but idk something about the way she said it really rubbed me the wrong way- and in hindsight we were all obviously very right about her.
skellington1 16th-Jul-2013 08:49 pm (UTC)
Oh, I see what you were getting at more.

I think it kind of goes together, though -- if you live with your head so in the sand you don't know anything about a high profile national trial, maybe your idea of the world stopped dead in the 50s? IDK.
tadashee 16th-Jul-2013 08:59 pm (UTC)
LMAO. tbh, i wish she hadnt given an interview, now i feel even worse about the verdict.
tadashee 16th-Jul-2013 04:55 pm (UTC)
Never mind. I didn't finish reading your comment. Ignore my earlier reply!
ar_feiniel_ 16th-Jul-2013 05:06 pm (UTC)
lol, I just replied, haha. O well, more for our inboxes. :)
bananainpyjamas 16th-Jul-2013 05:44 pm (UTC)
Her husband is a lawyer, so I have a hard time believing she knew as little about the case as she claimed to. Considering how quickly she announced the book deal, it seems she saw serving on the jury as a potential payday and said what she needed to say to be selected.
grace_om 16th-Jul-2013 05:50 pm (UTC)
This. When she called for jury duty she had to know they were polling for the Zimmerman trial. She must have had the idea for a book in mind the entire time she was going through the selection process and listening to testimony. It's disgraceful.

I think at the very least there should be a waiting period of several years before anyone involved in an official capacity with a trial (lawyers, jurors, etc.) are allowed to profit by writing about it.
skellington1 16th-Jul-2013 08:26 pm (UTC)
YES. A waiting period seems like a decent way to do it.
roseofjuly 16th-Jul-2013 08:04 pm (UTC)
This was the one who made a point to say that she only used newspapers to line her bird cage. And yet she remembered "rioting" in Sanford when Trayvon first died. So hmmm.
skellington1 16th-Jul-2013 08:26 pm (UTC)
Well, she uses the papers to line her bird cage, so she only learns about the news that didn't actually happen. Or something like that.
keeni84 17th-Jul-2013 08:14 pm (UTC)
She's the one who said that? I also wonder about the one who asked what Trayvon was doing out "so late at night."
This page was loaded Jul 26th 2017, 4:32 am GMT.